If You Ran Out of Sleeping Pills, Here's Goldstein's Reply

One of the things I seem to be cursed with this summer is long-winded blog discussion partners. There were times when I thought Dan Gerstein, bless him, wanted to drown me in words. Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom is even worse than that. I deleted his marginal comments on my own post and focused on the main body of Goldstein's comments.

Here we go.

". . . what caught my eye is not so much the redundancy of Caric’s reliance on the circular notion that the political policy beliefs of “right wingers” are bigoted because, well, rightwingers are by nature bigots, but rather the unoriginality and datedness of his attempts to put such a premise into the respectable garb of academic rigor.

To wit, Caric’s reply on race isn’t very original. In fact, it is merely a simplified rehashing of the arguments Stanley Fish made in “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Learned to Call the Kettle Black.” Note that the piece was published in 1993 — nearly 15 years ago.

Further, Caric’s entire worldview seems to rely, for the force of its arguments, on essays like Fish’s “How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words” — which uses the very kind of sleight of hand Fish himself ostensibly rails against, and proceeds from the dual fallacies that 1) “conservatism” and “liberalism” (or those who espouse what he would characterize as rightwing versions of what are more properly “liberal” beliefs) remain static descriptors, which has the effect of tarring those currently labeled “conservatives” with the detritus of conservatism past, just as today’s “progressives” get to fancy themselves the same, philosophically, as those liberals who once fought for equal rights and equality of opportunity; and 2) that a disagreement over the strategy for reaching a desired end (which is never really laid out) proves that one doesn’t wish to reach that end (instead of proving only that one disagrees with a particular strategy for reaching that end, or another end that s/he finds more desirable. From there, it is a short trip from recalcitrance to obstructionism and pure evil). Which is why I’ve tried, unsuccessfully, thus far, to get Caric to describe his end game with respect to racial politics. Does he favor a quilt or a melting pot? And why one over the other?

For Fish, the cumulative “blows” of racial inequality are pushed aside by those who live to serve the status quo of white dominance. In short, those who now profess “color-blindness” really want us to forget about the years of racial discrimination in this country so that they can comfort in its long-term effects.

But what Fish (and Caric, who merely parrots the 12-year-old article) don’t take into account is that the cumulative affects of racial discrimination have long been fought with social engineering policies specifically designed (or, at least, so they claimed) to level the playing field — with a goal toward establishing Dr King’s vision of a society wherein people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And part of the “history” of racial politics that Fish and Caric rely on must account for the last 40+ years of Great Society programs (which have alternately given us forced integration (busing) and “good” segregation (identity politics)), which, too, are part of the “cumulative” effect of this country’s attitudes and policies with respect to race.

The question now is, have the attempts by government (and the judiciary) to correct the wrongs of the past proven successful? In what ways? What parts of that program should be continued, if any? Why? And — importantly — is it possible that those policies themselves have outlived their usefulness, or are they necessary in perpetuity? Can they withstand Constitutional scrutiny without the aid of an interpretive approach that avails itself of social advocacy?

In short, was the strategy we chose to “fix” the racial divide the best one available to those of us who believe in individual rights (Fish plays on this notion, as well: when used by those on the right, “individual rights” is simply “code” for maintaining the status quo; when used by the 60s civil rights movement, it was a galvanizing cry for social change).

Ironically, when Fish wrote that piece in 1995, he was reacting to a kind of Republicanism that was still supporting foreign policy realism (today’s home of the new Dems) — and many of those who are now labeled “conservatives” would back then have self-described as liberals (myself included).

Caric believes that a culture, having learned the lessons of racial discrimination, either can’t change — or else they refuse to (Caric leans toward the whole “White Oppressor” trope — a way to show that he’s one of the “good ones” by admitting to his own self-loathing. White guilt as a kind of secular absolution).

Me, I’m not much into such reductionist psychologizing. Instead, I’m more interested in getting us to the place where we, as a society, claim we wish to be. And in doing so, I am interested in finding the best strategies for doing so.

It is my argument that the Great Society programs, while initially well-intentioned, have given rise to an entire new set of problems that keep us as a society from achieving our goal of individual equality. If, indeed, that remains our goal.

And it seems to me that those who most resist this argument are people like Caric, who have built a career around teaching things like “Comparative Racial Thought”. These are people who have a vested interest in keeping “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” alive, which is why they are so desirous to find it wherever and whenever they can, even if they have to strain — or even redefine the terms — to do so.

But if the idea is to truly level the playing field, it is my contention that doing away with “racial” thought — or “black” aesthetics, or “feminine” logic, etc — is the best way forward. Affirmative action that relies on something both scientifically dubious and historically charged as “race” is not a winning strategy; affirmative action based on opportunity is far more desirable, and far less racially divisive.

Fish and Caric would turn “merit” into a code word; but to do so cheapens the accomplishments of a host of immigrant cultures who throughout the history of this country have assimilated and prospered as “Americans.”

In short, Caric (and, at least in 1995, Fish) have staked out an enemy and consigned him with bad faith. They may as well as “the right” if we’ve all stopped beating our wives.
Similarly, his reply on homosexual marriage manages to suggest that those who don’t view marriage as a fundamental right (rather than a social contract decided upon by a given culture, with a long tradition shared over time by multiple cultures) are, by fiat, homophobic — despite the fact that they would readily grant all the benefits of state-sanctioned partnerships to same-sex couples.

Caric explains this only by saying that those who wish to deny such a “fundamental right” must necessarily hate gays, because by denying they devalue.

Pure sleight of hand. Because the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right is just that — a question, not some universal principle or inalienable right. Societies place restrictions on marriage all the time (from age to number of partners, etc). And, were same-sex marriage legislation to pass by popular vote, I’d have no trouble abiding it. As it stands, though, my argument against same sex marriage remains semantic — and redounds to worry over both the stated motives of some activists, and the precedent such a redefinition of marriage would set with respect to future petitioners vying for their “fundamental rights”.

Caric believes that these positions are simply masks for a hatred of Queers and Darkies. Because by doing so, he doesn’t have to get into the nitty gritty of putting his own policy preferences to the test.

My positions and arguments — linked above and there for all to see — are clearly stated; my reasons for supporting those arguments are, likewise, spelled out. For Caric’s part, he has yet to address them at all, except by way of generalizing about the motives of conservatives, and by relying on a pair of dated essays by Stanley Fish, who would proudly call himself a modern day sophist.

And before Caric takes the easy way out and labels me another knee-jerk attacker of po-mo, he should know that I have, on several occasions, defended Fish here — against attacks from conservatives.

I have also broken down some of Fish’s rhetorical subterfuge. So you see, I’m more difficult to pigeonhole than Dr Caric would imagine me to be.

****long-oppressed sister of update: I loved this comment from ushie so much that I decided to append it here, lest it be overlooked:

Meh. The sumbitch has the nerve, repeatedly, to characterize a blog he disagrees with as “cute” and “Fluffy.” Believe me, as a feminist and a female, I know EXACTLY what he’s doing by employing such denigrating terms that are usually an accompaniment to “Oh, don’t worry your pretty little head, darling.”

Caric, you should not be teaching women’s studies. You’re a fraud.

(Hey, anyone want to lay a bet as to whether he ignores this sally, thereby further marginalizing a female voice?)

Sadly, ushie, you miss Dr Caric’s point: the fact that you read this site (read it, you understand — not just skim it in order to jump to ridiculous conclusions) means that you cannot lay claim to being a feminist. Because “real” feminists cannot possibly align themselves with the hatred and bigotry toward women, gays, and all the other Others so routinely hated here.

In fact, “real” feminists can only believe in what “real” feminists believe in. Which is what makes them “real” feminists to begin with.

It’s simple, really: to prove your feminist bona fides, you must ride along with the herd.
Not sure that captures the spirit of what the first wave feminists were after, but hey — they’re just a bunch of old dead white women anyway, right? Good riddance, I say.